[fromageGB]

The other night at the ftf club my partner passed, RHO bid a natural 1♣, and I bid 2♥. Questions, explained as weak jump overcall, no follow up questions. I had a good 6 card heart suit and a 13 count including a singleton ♣K. Ultimate contract by them went off, and declarer - who was the director for the night - strongly objected to my bid as it caused her to misplay the hand.

Am I entitled to discount a singleton K in the opposition suit, giving a working 10 count, and overcalling a WJO? If asked, my partner would explain further that he would expect a 6 to 10 count and a 6 card suit. Should I be penalised?

What is the normal definition of a WJO?

[Jlall]

No you should not be penalized, but I typically say that my partners preempts when I am a passed hand are a wider range on both ends than usual.

[P_Marlowe]

Facing a passed hand, a WJO could be tactical.
You dont discount the single King of clubs, you just bid, what you think
will give them the biggest problem.
Call it a semi psych.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

I frequently discount stiff k when deciding an initial action. Have never had anyone, especially a playing director, think this was misleading ---it is my evaluation. I usually, if asked about pard's js o/c, don't answer "weak". I explain that I expect it to look like a weak 2-bid, but might be irregular since I am a passed hand.

[helene_t]

Ten points plus a stiff king sounds normal to me opposite a passed hand. Of course it's a maximum and you might have been a lot weaker, say QJTxxx and out.

[nigel_k]

Obviously it's fine to make the bid tactically but I don't think a 13 count with a stiff king is within the range that opponents are reasonably entitled to expect if partner just says 'weak jump overcall', so if he knows you sometimes do this he needs to offer a more complete description. If he said 5-12 and you had 13 with a stiff king that would be fine. Or he could just say 'wider range on both ends' as Justin suggested.

[kenrexford]

Be careful when you do that. A few years ago, in a NABC Mixed Pairs event, playing with a pickup partner, I made such a call.

The issue escalated between my partner and the opponents (I sat by watching), until eventually a bomb threat was made.

These things can be very upsetting, apparently. LOL

[EricK]

Almost the same thing happened to me once. Although in my case I genuinely psyched a WJO with a strongish hand opposite a passed partner because I had a feeling, correct as it turned out, that it would cause the opps to overbid.

I also got ruled against.

[gnasher]

Against well-educated opponents, one could describe the bid as "preemptive", which describes the objective of the bid without specifying any particular strength.

[barmar]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

Against well-educated opponents, one could describe the bid as "preemptive", which describes the objective of the bid without specifying any particular strength.

My regular partner never likes to use the word "weak" when describing a bid. A very frequent exchange after I make one of these bids is:

Opp: Is that weak?
Him: It's preemptive.

Experienced players don't judge everything by HCP, they use subjective hand evaluation. So descriptions like "preemptive" and "invitational" are more appropriate than "weak" or "11-12 HCP".

[Phil]

This commonly has a wide range opposite a passed partner, but its good form to alert it if the call could have a 2 count or a 13, if that is, in fact, your agreement.

I called the director in the 2000 NABC's when my opponent did it on a 13 count w/r.

All I got was a bunch of blank stares

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Sep 16 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

Be careful when you do that. A few years ago, in a NABC Mixed Pairs event, playing with a pickup partner, I made such a call.

The issue escalated between my partner and the opponents (I sat by watching), until eventually a bomb threat was made.

These things can be very upsetting, apparently. LOL

There's a guy around my area who I swear gets more director calls than anyone I've met. But I guess we've never met.

The number of these stories you have is amazing.

[helene_t]

barmar, on Sep 17 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Opp: Is that weak?
Him: It's preemptive.

I think that's silly. A jump overcall is always preemptive.

Whatever the implicit agreement is, disclose it. "Non-constructive" may be appropriate.

[Jlall]

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 17 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Opp: Is that weak?
Him: It's preemptive.

I think that's silly. A jump overcall is always preemptive.

Whatever the implicit agreement is, disclose it. "Non-constructive" may be appropriate.

Yeah I NEVER use the word preemptive as I feel all jumps are preemptive even if they are intermediate or whatever. To each his own I guess, it's probably just semantics.

[jmcw]

kenrexford, on Sep 16 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

Be careful when you do that.  A few years ago, in a NABC Mixed Pairs event, playing with a pickup partner, I made such a call.

The issue escalated between my partner and the opponents (I sat by watching), until eventually a bomb threat was made.

These things can be very upsetting, apparently.  LOL

Perfectly understandable in some areas of the world

[aguahombre]

Yep. "preemptive" describes the effect of the bid on partner and the opponents, not the nature of the bid. I have been guilty of using the term when disclosing, but won't do it any more.

[barmar]

Jlall, on Sep 17 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

helene_t, on Sep 17 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

barmar, on Sep 17 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Opp: Is that weak?
Him: It's preemptive.

I think that's silly. A jump overcall is always preemptive.

Whatever the implicit agreement is, disclose it. "Non-constructive" may be appropriate.

Yeah I NEVER use the word preemptive as I feel all jumps are preemptive even if they are intermediate or whatever. To each his own I guess, it's probably just semantics.

Yes, it's semantics. By definition, any bid that takes up space is preemptive. But when the word is used by itself as the entirety of the description, it implies that this is the primary intent of the bid.

Many people like weak NT because it has preemptive value, but it's still usually considered a constructive bid; preempting the 1 level is not its sole intent (probably because that's not really that much of a hardship -- this is the same reason why 2C and 2D are often used for non-preemptive uses, they don't preempt enough).

[gnasher]

From the Oxford English Dictionary

pre-empt
• verb 1 take action in order to prevent (something) happening or (someone) from doing something.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 03:00 PM, said:

From the Oxford English Dictionary

pre-empt
• verb 1 take action in order to prevent (something) happening or (someone) from doing something.

Yes so why does this imply a certain range? All 2 level jumps have constructive elements and preemptive elements.

Granted if someone said preemptive I would assume that to mean weak, but it doesn't really tell me much about their range. Someone who has a 5-10 range might say preemptive or someone who has a 2-13 range might say preemptive. Just doesn't seem very descriptive.

[jeremy69]

If you think the opponents might be upset by partner having a 13 count with a stiff king when the jump is billed as weak why not just say "Weak but wider range when partner is a passed hand" I know that is obvious but it may stop an opponent from frothing at the mouth.